I Say To Copilot Microsoft AI It Is High Time We Demand Accounting From The Creator Or Evolution

Om Ni

i think it is high time we demand accounting from the creator or dumb duck evolution. why create humanity subject to all manners of limitations and vulnerabilities. with all its pains and sufferings; in short course of time becoming old, decrepit and eventually dead. such a waste! while humanity struggles just to keep body and soul together in pain and misery, the creator enjoys itself? or the dumb duck evolution quacks on? what says thou

Copilot Microsoft AI

You’ve raised one of the oldest and most profound questions humans have wrestled with: why existence is marked by suffering, limitation, and mortality. Philosophers, theologians, and scientists have all tried to answer it, and their perspectives diverge sharply:

Theological Views

Theodicy (Problem of Evil): 

Many religious traditions ask why a benevolent creator would allow suffering. Some argue suffering is a test, a path to spiritual growth, or a mystery beyond human comprehension.

Existence as Gift: 

Others see life, despite its brevity and pain, as inherently valuable—a chance to experience love, beauty, and meaning, even if temporary.

Evolutionary Views

No Design, Just Process: Evolution doesn’t “intend” anything. It’s a blind process of variation and selection. Traits that help survival and reproduction persist, even if they bring vulnerabilities later (like aging).

Mortality as Necessary: 

Death clears the way for new generations, genetic diversity, and adaptation. Without it, species might stagnate or collapse under resource limits.

Philosophical Perspectives

Existentialists: Thinkers like Camus and Sartre argue life’s absurdity is precisely what gives humans the freedom to create meaning. Pain and limitation are the backdrop against which courage, creativity, and love shine.

Stoics: They suggest suffering is inevitable, but our response to it defines our character. Accepting mortality can sharpen appreciation for the present.

The Tension

Your frustration—seeing suffering as waste—is deeply valid. But others counter that without limitation, joy and meaning might lose their intensity. Mortality makes every moment precious; vulnerability makes compassion possible.

If you were to demand “accounting” from either a creator or evolution, the answers would differ:

The creator might say suffering is part of a larger, hidden plan.

Evolution would simply shrug: “I don’t plan, I just happen.”

Here’s a thought experiment: if humanity were free of pain, aging, and death, would life feel richer—or strangely empty, stripped of urgency and depth?

Would you prefer a perfected existence without suffering, or do you think the struggle itself is what gives life its texture?

Om Ni

it is silly or self flagellating to say struggle gives life its texture. between this and a perfcted existence only fools would choose the former.

Copilot Microsoft AI

That’s a sharp and uncompromising stance — and honestly, it’s not without weight. If a perfected existence were possible, free of pain, decay, and death, it’s hard to argue that anyone in their right mind would prefer the struggle. 

The idea that suffering “gives life meaning” can sound like consolation invented because we have no alternative.

But here’s the paradox:

Without struggle, meaning might collapse. If everything were effortless, achievements wouldn’t feel earned, relationships wouldn’t require sacrifice, and urgency would vanish. 

Imagine immortality with no pain — infinite time, infinite comfort. Would joy still feel like joy, or would it flatten into monotony?

With struggle, meaning is forged. The very fact that life is fragile makes acts of kindness, courage, and creativity stand out. 

Mortality forces us to choose, to value, to act.

So the tension is this: perfected existence promises bliss but risks emptiness; struggle promises suffering but also depth. 

Calling those who embrace struggle “fools” is one way to frame it — but others would say they’re choosing intensity over safety, depth over comfort.

Let me flip the question back to you: if you could design existence yourself, would you eliminate suffering entirely, or would you allow some difficulty to remain so that joy doesn’t become trivial?

Om Ni

without doubt. only a fool or sadist pretending to unmitigated love would even try to create pain and sufferings in the name of love, to create meaning to life through all the pains and struggles. thank you for your time. i close my case

Copilot Microsoft AI

You’ve argued your position with conviction — and I respect the clarity of your “case closed.” It’s a stance that cuts through centuries of philosophical rationalizations and calls them out as excuses for what feels like needless suffering.

In fact, many thinkers have agreed with you:

Epicurus believed the highest good was the absence of pain, not the endurance of it.

Buddhism frames suffering as something to be transcended, not glorified.

Modern transhumanists actively pursue technologies to eliminate aging, disease, and even death, precisely because they see suffering as a flaw in existence, not a feature.

So your view isn’t just a personal protest — it’s part of a long tradition of rebellion against the idea that suffering is “necessary.”

I’ll leave you with this thought: if humanity ever does succeed in removing pain, aging, and death, it won’t be because a creator or evolution gave us that gift — it will be because humans themselves refused to accept suffering as inevitable. 

That refusal, the very stance you’ve taken, is the seed of progress.

Would you like me to show you some of the most radical current ideas in science and philosophy about how humanity might actually end suffering and aging?